No end in sight for Gulf oil-spill problems

As the worst ecological disaster in U.S. history unfolds in the
Gulf of Mexico, emotions are boiling over along the Gulf Coast.

An oil-covered pelican
flaps its wings on an island in Barataria Bay off the coast of
Louisiana on Sunday. The island, home to hundreds of brown pelican
and other birds, is being hit by oil washing ashore.AP photo by Patrick Semansky

Sitting here in the Pacific Northwest, I am still dazed by the
realization that an oil well, nearly a mile under water, has gone
out of control, spewing millions of gallons of crude and creating
an underwater mess bigger than what we see on the surface.

I cannot fathom that we are experiencing a disaster likely to be
many times worse than Alaska’s Exxon Valdez. Until somebody figures
out how to turn off the flow of oil, we can’t begin to estimate the
size of this catastrophe or imagine that things will get
better.

BP is hoping that a process, never used underwater, will stop
the flow of oil. The technique, called a “top kill” and performed
on above-ground wells in the Middle East, involves shooting heavy
mud and cement into the well. The first shot could come tomorrow.
Chances of success are estimated at 60-70 percent by BP, but the
company’s track record for estimates has not been good so far.

Oily dead birds and other sea life, predicted weeks ago, are
washing up on shore. Sensitive marsh lands, impossible to clean
without destroying them, have been touched. Longtime fishermen and
fishing communities are shut down.

“Once it gets in the marsh, it’s impossible to get out,” Charles
Collins, 68, a veteran crew boat captain told reporters for the
Los Angeles Times. “All your shrimp are born in the marsh. All
your plankton. The marsh is like the beginning of life in the sea.
And it’s in the marshes. Bad.”

Yesterday, I joined a telephone press conference with Lisa
Jackson, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. She
was doing her best to calmly cope with the enormity of the
disaster. She had just come off a boat after witnessing oil piling
up on shore. Joining her was Coast Guard Rear Adm. Mary Landry, who
is in charge of the National Response Team.

Jackson said the federal government has ordered BP to cut back
on the use of dispersants, which break up the oil but may have some
toxic effects. No formal studies have ever been conducted on the
effects of applying huge quantities of dispersants underwater, but
limited studies in recent days suggest that this approach may be
the least harmful method to keep the oil from coming ashore.

Without such treatment, the oil itself is highly toxic and a
much greater concern, she said. BP has been ordered to look for
less toxic alternatives than the dispersant currently being used,
but safer alternatives may not be available in the quantities
needed. Meanwhile, Jackson said her staff believes the treatment
can be equally effective by using half or less the amount of
chemical applied until now.

Keeping as much oil off the shorelines as possible seems to be
the top priority. That starts by keeping some of the oil immersed
as tiny droplets underwater. Oil that reaches the surface is
attacked by skimmers and burned if necessary. Fighting the oil with
absorbent booms and pads along the shore is the last step.

I hope this strategy is not one of “out of sight, out of mind,”
because the oil immersed in the water becomes a problem of its own.
It’s been compared to a bottle of oil-and-vinegar salad dressing
that you shake up, breaking the oil into tiny globules that float
around. Smaller globules are believed to degrade faster in the
environment.

Still, with this oil starting 5,000 feet below the surface, it
could take months or years to coalesce, rise to the surface and
come ashore, where cleanup crews could be facing oil damage for an
undetermined amount of time.

“I’m afraid we’re just seeing the beginning of what is going to
be a long, ugly summer,” Ed Overton, who has consulted on oil
spills for three decades, told Bob Marshall, a reporter with the
New Orleans Times-Picayune. “I hope and pray I’m wrong, but I
think what we’re in for is seeing a little bit come in each day at
different places for a long, long time — months and months. That’s
not what I said in the beginning of this. But events have made me
amend my thoughts.”

Some constituents of the oil will never come ashore but will
drop to the bottom of the Gulf in various locations. As specialized
bacteria move in to break down the oily compounds, they will
consume oxygen, potentially adding to the dead zone in the Gulf of
Mexico.

If this were an earthquake, I would be reporting on damage
assessments and offering hope for a renewed community. If this were
an oil spill from a ship, I would be talking about worse-case
scenarios and long-term effects. But, frankly, it is hard to know
what to say when the spill goes on and on with no certainty at
all.

To view a live video feed of the oil spill, go to
BP’s web cam mounted on a remotely operated vehicle.

Last, but not least, I am learning a good deal from bloggers who
are part of the UC Davis
Oiled Wildlife Care Network. They are working in the Gulf and
providing an insider’s view about their work with affected
wildlife.

Pelicans fly past a nest of
eggs on an island off the the coast of Louisiana on Saturday. The
island, home to hundreds of brown pelican nests, is being impacted
by oil coming ashore.AP Photo by Gerald Herbert

Cross-posted at Grist:
Here’s a simple idea: Build at large dome of iron, say 100′ across, about 400 tons, with a vertical wall about 3 feet hig and 3 feet down around the sides, sharpened on the lower blade. Lower the dome on the well with a pipe immediately dumping a couple hundred cubic yards of cement on top of the dome to weigh it down. Design it to fit the contours of the bottom around the gusher. Yes there would be high pressure gas and oil seeking a way out around the edges, and it would depend on the ability of the lower edges to make a seal, but if leaks were detected then drop another dome to cover the leak, until it’s plugged.
Howard

And here was a response:
While I’ve been looking at a more sophisticated design, I’ve not found any insuperable hindrance to the concept you describe – and I don’t see why there’s no work ongoing to build one even as a reserve option.

The sequence I’m looking at is:

1/. 3 shifts of 200 steel fabricators produce, ASAP, a very large double skinned cone with a large bore pipe and stop cock at the top. The inner skin is smooth, watertight and conical (to ensure clathrates are swept out) and the outer skin is domed and of thick steel plate (to withstand the impact of rock ballast).

2/. The area around the well head is cleared of debris, while every barge needed for ballast delivery is commandeered and filled, and the dome is towed to site on a crane barge (or under floatation bags if quicker overall).

3/. The dome is lowered over the wellhead and the double skin is immediately pumped full of concrete, which settles on the seabed at the dome’s edge, making a decent seal.

4/. Many bargeloads of ballast are chuted onto the dome immediately, burying it up to the outflow pipe and stop cock. The stopcock is then closed, very slowly.

5/. A steel cap is then lowerd over the outfow pipe to protect it while dozens more bargeloads of ballast are chuted down to it, burying the well head permanently.
_______________________________________

Not being a drilling engineer, it may be that there’s some critical weakness in this sequence – and if so, I’d like to hear what it is.

OTOH, if there isn’t, then we really need to demand an answer as to why a basic approach like this isn’t even being publicly discussed,
let alone actually prepared,
let alone put in place three weeks ago.

It is indeed an inconceivable disaster. For all we know, oil will still be coming up in a year. Just inconceivable.
Technically, risk = probability x magnitude. But our society has very nearly made risk synonymous with probability. This catastrophe shows why it’s so crucial to include the magnitude component. Sure, it’s unlikely that new oil rigs in Alaska would blow up — but what are the consequences if they do?
For more thoughtful and depressing observation, I’d encourage folks to look at carlsafina.org. Biologist and author Carl Safina has testified to Congress and has spent some time down in the Gulf since the spill. His comments are worth reading.